Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

The Right of Nations to Self-Determination

8. THE UTOPIAN KARL MARX AND THE PRACTICAL ROSA
LUXEMBURG

Calling  Polish independence a “utopia” and repeating thisad nauseam, Rosa Luxemburg exclaims ironically: Why not raise the
demand for the independence of Ireland?

The  “practical” Rosa Luxemburg evidently does not know what Karl
Marx’s attitude to the question of Irish independence was. It is worth
while dwelling upon this, so as to show how aconcretedemand for
national independence was analysed from a genuinely Marxist, not
opportunist, standpoint.

It  was Marx’s custom to “sound out” his socialist acquaintances, as
he expressed it, to test their intelligence and the strength of their
convictions.[3]After making the acquaintance of Lopatin, Marx wrote to
Engels on July 5, 1870, expressing a highly flattering opinion of the young
Russian socialist but adding at the same time:

“Polandis his weak point. On this point he speaks quite like
an Englishman—say, an English Chartist of the old school—about
Ireland.”[4]

Marx  questions a socialist belonging to an oppressor nation about his
attitude to the oppressed nation and at once reveals a defectcommonto the socialists of the dominant nations (the English and
the Russian): failure to understand their socialist duties towards the
downtrodden nations, their echoing of the prejudices acquired from the
bourgeoisie of the “dominant nation”.

Before  passing on to Marx’s positive declarations on Ireland, we must
point out that in general the attitude of Marx and Engels to the national
question was strictly critical, and that they recognised its historically
conditioned importance. Thus, Engels wrote to Marx on May 23, 1851, that
the study of history was leading him to pessimistic conclusions in regard
to Poland, that the importance of Poland wastemporary—only until the agrarian revolution in Russia. The role of the
Poles in history was one of “bold (hotheaded) foolishness”. “And one
cannot point to a single instance in which Poland has successfully
represented progress, even in relation to Russia, or done anything at all
of historical importance.” Russia contains more of civilisation,
education, industry and the bourgeoisie than “the Poland of the indolent
gentry”. “What are Warsaw and Cracow compared to St. Petersburg, Moscow,
Odessa!” Engels had no faith in the success of the Polish gentry’s
insurrections.

But  all these thoughts, showing the deep insight of genius, by no means
prevented Engels and Marx from treating the Polish movement with the most
profound and ardent sympathy twelve years later, when Russia was still
dormant and Poland was seething.

When  drafting the Address of the International in 1864, Marx wrote to
Engels (on November 4, 1864) that he had to combat Mazzini’s nationalism,
and went on to say: “Inasmuch as international politics occurred in the
Address, I spoke of countries, not of nationalities, and denounced Russia,
not theminores gentium.” Marx had no doubt as to the subordinate
position of the national question as compared with the “labour
question”. But his theory is as far from ignoring national movements as
heaven is from earth.

Then  came 1866. Marx wrote to Engels about the “Proudhonist clique”
in Paris which “declares nationalities to be an absurdity, attacks
Bismarck and Garibaldi. As polemics against chauvinism their doings are
useful and explicable. But as believers in Proudhon (Lafargue and Longuet,
two very good friends of mine here, also belong to them), who think all
Europe must and will sit quietly on their hind quarters until the gentlemen
in France abolish poverty and ignorance—they are grotesque.” (Letter of
June 7, 1866.)

“Yesterday,”  Marx wrote on June 20, 1866, “there Was a discussion in
the International Council on the present war.... The discussion wound up,
as was to be foreseen, with ‘the question of nationality’ in general and
the attitude we take towards it.... The representatives of ‘Young France’
(non workers) came out with the announcement that all
nationalities and even nations were ‘antiquated prejudices’. Proudhonised
Stirnerism.... The whole world waits until theFrench are ripe for a social revolution.... The English laughed very much
when I began my speech by saying that our friend Lafargue and others, who
had done away with nationalities, had spoken ‘French’ to us, i. e., a
language which nine-tenths of the audience did not understand. I also
suggested that by the negation of nationalities he appeared, quite
unconsciously, to understand their absorption by the model French nation.”

The  conclusion that follows from all these critical remarks of Marx’s
is clear: the working class should be the last to make a fetish of the
national question, since the development of capitalism does, not
necessarily awakenallnations to independent life. But to brush
aside the mass national movements once they have started, and to refuse to
support what is progressive in them means, in effect, pandering tonationalisticprejudices, that is, recognising “one’s own
nation” as a model nation (or, we would add, one possessing the exclusive
privilege of forming a
			       state).[1]

But  let us return to the question of Ireland.

Marx’s position on this question is most clearly expressed in the
following extracts from his letters:

“I  have done my best to bring about this demonstration of the English
workers in favour of Fenianism.... I used to think the separation of
Ireland from England impossible. I now think it inevitable, although after
the separation there may come federation.” This is what Marx wrote to
Engels on November 2, 1867.

In  his letter of November 30 of the same year he added:

“...what  shall we advise theEnglishworkers? In my opinion
they must make theRepeal of the Union” [Ireland with England,
i.e., the separation of Ireland from England] (in short, the affair of
1783, only democratised and adapted to the conditions of the time) an
article of theirpronunziamento. This is the only legal and
therefore only possible form of Irish emancipation which can be admitted in
the programme of anEnglishparty. Experience must show laterwhether a mere personal union can continue to subsist between the two
countries....

“...What  the Irish need is:

“1)
Self-government  and independence from England;

“2)
An  agrarian revolution....”

Marx  attached great importance to the Irish question and delivered
hour-and-a-half lectures on this subject at the German Workers’ Union
(letter of December 17, 1867).

In  a letter dated November 20, 1868, Engels spoke of “the hatred
towards the Irish found among the English workers”, and almost a year
later (October 24, 1869), returning to this subject, he wrote

“Il  n’y a qu’un pas[it is only one step] from Ireland to
Russia.... Irish history shows what a misfortune it is for one nation to
have subjugated another. All the abominations of the English have their
origin in the Irish Pale. I have still to plough my way through the
Cromwellian period, but this much seems certain to me, that things would
have taken another turn in England, too, but for the necessity of military
rule in Ireland and the creation of a new aristocracy there.”

Let  us note, in passing, Marx’s letter to Engels of August 18, 1869:

“The  Polish workers in Posen have brought a strike to a victorious end
with the help of their colleagues in Berlin. This struggle against Monsieur
le Capital—even in the lower form of the strike—is a more serious way
of getting rid of national prejudices than peace declamations from the lips
of bourgeois gentlemen.”

The  policy on the Irish question pursued by Marx in the International
may be seen from the following:

On  November 18, 1869, Marx wrote to Engels that he had spoken for an
hour and a quarter at the Council of the International on the question of
the attitude of the British Ministry to the Irish Amnesty, and had proposed
the following resolution:

“that  in his reply to the Irish demands for the release of the
imprisoned Irish patriots Mr. Gladstone deliberately insults the Irish
nation;

“that  he clogs political amnesty with conditions alike degrading to
the victims of misgovernment and the people they belong to;

“that  having, in the teeth of his responsible position, publicly and
enthusiastically cheered on the American slave-holders’ rebellion, he now
steps in to preach to the Irish people the doctrine of passive obedience;

“that  his whole proceedings with reference to the Irish Amnesty
question are the true and genuine offspring of that ‘policy of
conquest’, by the fiery denunciation of which Mr. Gladstone ousted his
Tory rivals from office;

“that  the General Council of the International Workingmen’s
Association express their admiration of the spirited, firm and high-souled
manner in which the Irish people carry on their Amnesty movement;

“that  this resolution be communicated to all branches of, and
workingmen’s bodies connected with, the International Workingmen’s
Association in Europe and America.”

On  December 10, 1869, Marx wrote that his paper on the Irish question
to be read at the Council of the International would be couched as follows:

“Quite  apart from all phrases about ‘international’ and ‘humane’
justice for Ireland—which are taken for granted in the International
Council—it is in the direct and absolute interest of the English
working class to get rid of their present connexion with Ireland. And
this is my fullest conviction; and for reasons which in part I cannottell the English workers themselves. For a long time I
believed that it would be possible to overthrow the Irish regime by English
working-class ascendancy. I always expressed this point of view in theNew York
Tribune[5][an American paper to which Marx contributed for a long
time]. Deeper study has now convinced me of the opposite. The English
working class willnever accomplish anythinguntil it has got rid
of Ireland.... The English reaction in England had its roots in the
subjugation of Ireland.” (Marx’s italics.)

Marx’s  policy on the Irish question should now be quite clear to our
readers.

Marx,  the “utopian”, was so “unpractical” that he stood for the
separation of Ireland, which half a century later has not yet been
achieved.

What  gave rise to Marx’s policy, and was it not mistaken?

At  first Marx thought that Ireland would not be liberated by the
national movement of the oppressed nation, but by the working-class
movement of the oppressor nation. Marx did not make anAbsoluteof the national movement, knowing, as he did,
that only the victory of the working class can bring about the complete
liberation of all nationalities. It is impossible to estimate beforehand
all the possible relations between the bourgeois liberation movements of
the oppressed nations and the proletarian emancipation movement of the
oppressor nation (the very problem which today makes the national question
in Russia so difficult).

However,  it so happened that the English working class fell under the
influence of the liberals for a fairly long time, became an appendage to
the liberals, and by adopting a liberal-labour policy left itself
leaderless. The bourgeois liberation movement in Ireland grew stronger and
assumed revolutionary forms. Marx reconsidered his view and corrected
it. “What a misfortune it is for a nation to have subjugated another.”
The English working class will never be free until Ireland is freed from
the English yoke. Reaction in England is strengthened and fostered by the
enslavement of Ireland (just as reaction in Russia is fostered by her
enslavement of a number of nations!).

And,  in proposing in the International a resolution of sympathy with
“the Irish nation”, “the Irish people” (the clever L. Vl. would
probably have berated poor Marx for forgetting about the class struggle!),
Marx advocated theseparationof Ireland from England, “although
after the separation there may come federation”.

What  were the theoretical grounds for Marx’s conclusion? In England the
bourgeois revolution had been consummated long ago. But it had not yet been
consummated in Ireland; it is being consummated only now, after the lapse
of half a century, by the reforms of the English Liberals. If capitalism
had been overthrown in England as quickly as Marx had at first expected,
there would have been no room for a bourgeois-democratic and general
national movement in Ireland. But since it had arisen, Marx advised the
English workers to support it, give it a revolutionary impetus and see it
through in the interests oftheir ownliberty.

The  economic ties between Ireland and England in the 1860s were of
course, even closer than Russia’s present ties with Poland, the Ukraine,
etc. The “unpracticality” and “impracticability” of the separation of
Ireland (if only owing to geographical conditions and England’s immense
colonial power) were quite obvious. Though, in principle, an enemy of
federalism, Marx in this instance granted the possibility of federation, as
				well,[2]if onlythe emancipation of Ireland was achieved in a
revolutionary, not reformist way, through a movement of the mass of the
people of Ireland supported by the working class of England. There can be
no doubt that only such a solution of the historical problem would have
been in the best interests of the proletariat and most conducive to rapid
social progress.

Things  turned out differently. Both the Irish people and the English
proletariat proved weak. Only now, through the sordid deals between the
English Liberals and the Irish bourgeoisie, is the Irish problembeing
solved(the example of Ulster shows with what difficulty) through the
land reform (with compensation) and Home Rule (not yet introduced). Well
then? Does it follow that Marx and Engels were “utopians”, that they put
forward “impracticable” national demands, or that they allowed themselves
to be influenced by the Irish petty-bourgeois nationalists (for there is no
doubt about the petty-bourgeois nature of the Fenian movement), etc.?

No.  In the Irish question, too, Marx and Engels pursued a consistently
proletarian policy, which really educated the masses in a spirit of
democracy and socialism. Only such a policy could have saved both Ireland
and England half acentury of delay in introducing the necessary reforms, and prevented these
reforms from being mutilated by the Liberals to please the reactionaries.

The  policy of Marx and Engels on the Irish question serves as a
splendid example of the attitude the proletariat of the oppressor nations
should adopt towards national movements, an example which has lost none of
its immensepracticalimportance. It serves as a warning against
that “servile haste” with which the philistines of all countries, colours
and languages hurry to label as “utopian” the idea of altering the
frontiers of states that were established by the violence and privileges of
the landlords and bourgeoisie of one nation.

If  the Irish and English proletariat had not accepted Marx’s policy and
had not made the secession of Ireland their slogan, this would have been
the worst sort of opportunism, a neglect of their duties as democrats and
socialists, and a concession toEnglishreaction and theEnglishbourgeoisie.

[1]Cf.  also Marx’s letter to Engels of June 3, 1867: “...I have learned
with real pleasure from the Paris letters toThe Timesabout the
pro-Polish exclamations of the Parisians against Russia.... Mr. Proudhon
and his little doctrinaire clique are not the French people.”  —Lenin

[2]By  the way, it is not difficult to see why, from a Social-Democratic
point of view, the right to “self-determination” meansneitherfederationnorautonomy (a though, speaking in the abstract, both
come under the category of “self-determination”). The right to federation
is simply meaningless, since federation implies a bilateral contract. It
goes without saying that Marxists cannot include the defence of federalism
in general in their programme. As far as autonomy is concerned, Marxists
defend, not the “right” to autonomy, but autonomy itself, as a general
universal principle of a democratic state with a mixed national
composition, and a great variety of geographical and other
conditions. Consequently, the recognition of the “right of nations to
autonomy” is as absurd as that of the “right of nations to federation”.
—Lenin

[3]Lenin  refers to W. Liebknecht’s reminiscences of Man. (See the
symposiumReminiscences of Marx and Engels, Moscow, 1957, p. 98.)

[4]See  Man’s letter to Engels dated July 5, 1870.

[5]The  New York Daily Tribune—an American newspaper published
from 1841 to 1924. Until the middle fifties it was the organ of the Left
wing of the American Whigs, and thereafter the organ of the Republican
Party. Karl Marx contributed to the paper from August 1851 to March 1862,
and at his request Frederick Engels wrote numerous articles for it. During
the period of reaction that set in in Europe, Karl Marx and Frederick
Engels used this widely circulated and at that time progressive newspaper
to publish concrete material exposing the evils of capitalist
society. During the American Civil War Marx’s contributions to the
newspaper stopped. His break withThe New York Daily Tribunewas
largely due to the growing influence on the editorial board of the
advocates of compromise with the slam-owners, and the papers’s departure
from progressive positions. Eventually the newspaper swung still more to
the right.